Resolving the Mormon Issue

Daniel J. Elazar

The Facts of the Case:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the
Mormons) have been present in Israel for a long time. Because of
their belief that Jews would return to their land as a "sign of
the time" of the second coming, the Mormon missionary Orson Hyde
was sent to Jerusalem by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church
in 1841, only ten years after the founding of the Church. Hyde
recited a "Zionist prayer" and dedicated the land to the Jews from
atop the Mount of Olives.

Today, there is a Latter Day Saints Church in Jerusalem which
holds services on Saturdays, and the modern Brigham Young
University (BYU) program has been functioning in Israel for
seventeen years, operating out of East Jerusalem and Kibbutz Ramat
Rachel on the southwest border of city. Over 1850 students have
participated in this eight-month program since 1977.

A number of years ago, BYU decided to build a permanent home for
the program and brought their request before Jerusalem Mayor Teddy
Kollek. The original request had been for a site on the western
side of the city, between the King David Hotel and Hebrew Union
College. The Mayor decided that the eastern side of the city would
be a better location, probably in the wake of ultra-Orthodox
extremist attacks on Christian institutions in the western part of
the city, including the burning down of the Baptist Church in
Rehavia.

All the parties agreed upon the present site on the slope of Mount
Scopus. This site was transferred to the Mormons after their
request passed through all the regular channels, including the
municipality, the regional building committee, and the appropriate
ministries. All of these agencies signed the request without it
becoming a public issue.

After construction was underway, a public committee was organized
to oppose the building on the grounds that its real purpose was
the establishment of a headquarters for Mormon missionizing of
Jews. The committee was initially composed solely of Orthodox
Jews, though others have been attracted to it, including at least
one member of Hashomer Hatzair. The committee has succeeded in
mobilizing much of the Orthodox Jewish establishment to oppose the
Mormon center, turning it into a serious public issue.

In the meantime, there have been revelations of routine Mormon
missionizing here in Israel at least through 1982. In
correspondence from 1977, Dr. David Galbraith, the present head of
the Brigham Young University program here, wrote to his
counterparts in Utah suggesting the need for a substantial
building in Jerusalem which would enable missionizing to take
place. However, transfer of the Mount Scopus site to the Mormons
was based upon a pledge from them that there would be no
missionizing in Israel. After some hesitation, this pledge was
delivered in writing. Galbraith and his associates say that
whatever their plans were in 1977, they respect the laws of the
country and the wishes of the inhabitants and they will not
missionize here, just as they do not in certain other countries in
the world, such as Egypt, Pakistan and the Soviet Union (where, we
might add, they would be put to death for missionizing, unlike in
Israel).

The Major Problems:

In addition to the issue of Jewish sensibilities towards being
missionized, especially in their own land, the major problem with
the Mount Scopus site involves its prominent and visible location,
in close proximity to the Hebrew University and its position
across the valley from the Temple site. The Mormons have a strong
reputation as being very devoted missionizers, with over 30,000
missionaries operating around the world (out of a total membership
of 5 million). They organize their missionary activities
systematically and put great effort into them. Every LDS member
must spend two years of his or her life in the service of the
Church. These volunteers are spread throughout the world as
missionaries. On the other hand, the Mormons have shown strong
support for Israel in the past and have revealed a basic
friendliness to Jewish aspirations in Israel, an attitude which
Israel can scarcely afford to jeopardize.

The question of what constitutes freedom of religion in this case
adds another dimension to the issue. Were a local Mormon group
seeking to build a house of worship, there could be no complaint;
but the project under discussion is proposed by and for
"outsiders" who wish to build an edifice of monumental proportions
on a most prominent site. Israel has an obligation to protect the
freedom of religion of its citizens but need not grant outsiders
the same rights. However, if, as Jews claim, Jerusalem is indeed
the spiritual center of the world, outsiders must be granted a
place here, including those Christians who view proselytizing and
missionizing as part of their faith.

Mormon theology is itself an ancillary, though less tangible
issue. Mormons see themselves as Jews of the tribe of Ephraim,
one of the tribes of Joseph, whereas Jews are thought by them to
be of the descendants of Judah. This means that Mormons hold
themselves as coequal in status to "other Jews," which is why to
them all non-Mormons except Jews are "gentiles." Therefore, in
terms of their theology and long-range concerns, their presence on
Mount Scopus is far more meaningful for them than a simple
university center.

This dilemma is compounded by the fact that the building is going
up very rapidly. The opposition is becoming more intense and
threats of violence against the building have already been heard.
The Mormons now employ fifteen security guards at the construction
site.

Other Christian Groups:

The larger issue must also be addressed: Once the Mormons build
their Center, other Christian groups will demand a significant
presence in Jerusalem as well and will seek equally prominant and
visible sites-- presently, over thirty organized Churches operate
in Israel. In addition, the tension--even animosity--between the
Church of the Latter-day Saints and "mainstream " Christianity
must be considered. The establishment of a Mormon presence on the
proposed scale will present a challenge to other Christian groups
to whom Israel will then be unable to deny equal access as their
right. If the Mormons do build, some guarantee against
missionizing will have to be made part of the charter agreement if
constant battle is to be avoided (although such a guarantee would
not necessarily deflect the opposition of groups opposing a
substantial Christian presence in Jerusalem as a threat to Jewish
survival).

What are the Options?:

Take whatever legal steps are necessary, including legislation
on the part of the Knesset, to have construction stopped.

Allow the building to be completed and accept the Mormon's
pledge that they will not missionize in Israel.

Make every effort to reach a compromise involving financial
compensation and acceptance by the Mormons of an alternative, less
prominent, site in Jerusalem.

Seek a comprehensive agreement with all Christian groups,
allowing them a presence here on condition that Jerusalem and
Israel be declared places of inter-religious dialogue and declared
off-limits for missionizing or proselytizing of any kind.

Recommendations:

The State of Israel should officially recognize the special
role of Jerusalem as a spiritual center and allow legitimate
groups to come and build in Jerusalem, provided that they agree
not to missionize. To this end we recommend the creation of a
"Covenant of Peace" which would pledge all parties to recognize
Jerusalem and Israel as a place for dialogue and not for
proselytizing. Such a "Covenant of Peace" would not only place
people on their honor in creating an atmosphere of mutual respect,
but would create a mutual interest in upholding and safeguarding
the terms of the covenant in order to insure that all parties
remain equally restrained and that no one group achieves an
advantage over the others-in short, mutual respect will create
mutual vigilance.

An area in Jerusalem should be set aside for the construction
of buildings of this nature. One possible area is the area more
or less between Tantur and Mar Elias at the southern edges of the
city. This is within the city limits, but is not a site which is
likely to provoke more than the minimum of anger on the part of
those who will reject a solution on any terms.

Persuading the Mormons to transfer their plans to an area of
this type to avoid the necessity of protecting their building from
potential violence for an indefinite period would be desireable.
Of course the Mormons would have to be compensated under such an
arrangement. Failing that, it will probably be necessary to allow
the Mormons to complete their project, but to take appropriate
steps to assure that all future construction by non-Jewish
religious institutions would be in a site specially zoned for that
purpose. The municipality should be willing to establish what
would develop into an esthetically attractive religious park, as
well as standard procedures by which legitimate groups could
acquire sites there.